the GOP is going extict - Atheist Nexus2016-12-09T16:00:53Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/the-gop-is-going-extict?commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A2096997&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noNote the "Clinton surplus" wa…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-08:2182797:Comment:21183802012-12-08T15:56:38.658ZJim Schultzhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JimSchultz
<p>Note the "Clinton surplus" was created by 1) strong economic growth due to innovation like the internet, high tech stuff and 2) the cold war peace dividend (decreased military spending). </p>
<p>Obama wants to take us back to the Clinton era by returning tax rates to what they were, as if higher taxes is what created the strong economy. Clinton was a centrist and picked a good time to be president. The country and the world has changed - demographic changes in USA (growing % of retired…</p>
<p>Note the "Clinton surplus" was created by 1) strong economic growth due to innovation like the internet, high tech stuff and 2) the cold war peace dividend (decreased military spending). </p>
<p>Obama wants to take us back to the Clinton era by returning tax rates to what they were, as if higher taxes is what created the strong economy. Clinton was a centrist and picked a good time to be president. The country and the world has changed - demographic changes in USA (growing % of retired people), and growing economic powers like India, China, Brazil, SE Asia. We are in for some rough sledding in this country, no matter who is in charge. </p> Tom - You have stumbled on to…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-08:2182797:Comment:21184902012-12-08T15:42:07.735ZJim Schultzhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JimSchultz
<p>Tom - You have stumbled on to the true problem here - politicians from either party do not like to say no to spending, that is where they get their power from - giving things to people.</p>
<p>That is why the only way they can agree to reduce the increase in spending is through things like the military base commission (a 3rd party commission decides which military bases to close) and mechanisms like the sequester, where they don't have to actually vote on specific spending…</p>
<p>Tom - You have stumbled on to the true problem here - politicians from either party do not like to say no to spending, that is where they get their power from - giving things to people.</p>
<p>That is why the only way they can agree to reduce the increase in spending is through things like the military base commission (a 3rd party commission decides which military bases to close) and mechanisms like the sequester, where they don't have to actually vote on specific spending reductions.</p>
<p>If I were the Repubs - I would give Obama what he has demanded - a tax rate increase on the 2% and nothing else, by passing a bill to extend the Bush era tax cuts for the 98%. The president already said he would sign it. Let the sequestration cuts go into effect, no additional "stimulus" spending, etc. If the economy tanks, it will be harder for Obama to blame the Repubs (of course he still will) as he has made his whole public case based on fixing the deficit by "taxing the rich folks a little bit more". When the cuts start to bite programs the Dems like they will be forced to actually negotiate. I don't know if the Repubs will go for that, I am just saying that is what I would do. </p>
<p>It is actually funny that for the past 10 years the Dems have always said "the Bush tax cuts only favored the rich". So then why not let them all expire ? Suddenly it appears that everyone was given a tax cut ? </p> "He could - if he gets his wa…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-08:2182797:Comment:21182942012-12-08T09:51:58.152Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>"He could - if he gets his way - run up government levels and the deficit so high that it will transform the country down the road."</p>
<p>Jim, you weren't paying attention during the mid-1980s. The Repubs, knowing they had too few votes in Congress to cut the social programs, started borrowing--intending to bankrupt the government and thus cut the social spending.</p>
<p>Evidence? The record borrowing by Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43. Add Bush 43's wiping out Clinton's surplus.</p>
<p>The Dems?…</p>
<p>"He could - if he gets his way - run up government levels and the deficit so high that it will transform the country down the road."</p>
<p>Jim, you weren't paying attention during the mid-1980s. The Repubs, knowing they had too few votes in Congress to cut the social programs, started borrowing--intending to bankrupt the government and thus cut the social spending.</p>
<p>Evidence? The record borrowing by Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43. Add Bush 43's wiping out Clinton's surplus.</p>
<p>The Dems? The Repub attack machine's "tax and spend" charges terrified them into silence.</p>
<p>Finally, aided by Repub excesses, they regrew a backbone. Obama was slow to grow his.</p>
<p></p> Jim, you believe "genuinely s…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-08:2182797:Comment:21182922012-12-08T09:30:16.575Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p><span>Jim, you believe "genuinely small businesses" are voting more and more for Repubs over time, but don't have the specific %s?</span></p>
<p><span>Your making the claim is wrecking your own credibility.</span></p>
<p><span>But that's okay; 'tis a small loss.<br/></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Jim, you believe "genuinely small businesses" are voting more and more for Repubs over time, but don't have the specific %s?</span></p>
<p><span>Your making the claim is wrecking your own credibility.</span></p>
<p><span>But that's okay; 'tis a small loss.<br/></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p> Thanks to the intelligence of…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-08:2182797:Comment:21182892012-12-08T09:22:58.338Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Thanks to the intelligence of American general election voters, the demands of GOP primary election voters for ideological purity will wreck the GOP before they wreck our country.</p>
<p>The GOP welcomed the wealthy and got their demands for trickle-down economic policies.</p>
<p>The GOP welcomed the southern Dems and got their racism.</p>
<p>The GOP welcomed the fundamentalists and got their demands for ideological purity.</p>
<p>The GOP forced the Dems to regrow a backbone.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thanks to the intelligence of American general election voters, the demands of GOP primary election voters for ideological purity will wreck the GOP before they wreck our country.</p>
<p>The GOP welcomed the wealthy and got their demands for trickle-down economic policies.</p>
<p>The GOP welcomed the southern Dems and got their racism.</p>
<p>The GOP welcomed the fundamentalists and got their demands for ideological purity.</p>
<p>The GOP forced the Dems to regrow a backbone.</p>
<p></p> Jim:
Obama tossing a bone to…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-08:2182797:Comment:21185322012-12-08T08:49:58.072Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Jim:</p>
<p>Obama tossing a bone to the base and to divide Republicans?</p>
<p>Ha! As if you Repubs need more dividing than you have already done...to yourselves.</p>
<p>Party purity has a cost, and your party is now paying it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Jim:</p>
<p>Obama tossing a bone to the base and to divide Republicans?</p>
<p>Ha! As if you Repubs need more dividing than you have already done...to yourselves.</p>
<p>Party purity has a cost, and your party is now paying it.</p>
<p></p> Matthew - I look forward to y…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-08:2182797:Comment:21183472012-12-08T04:24:35.541ZJim Schultzhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JimSchultz
<p>Matthew - I look forward to your reply. You also said previously "the debt ceiling, for example, does not allow for increased spending - it only allows us to pay for what we've already spent. it is not a tool for negotiation. the GOP wants to use the threat of default, thus diminishing the full faith and credit of the US, as a way to get what they want." </p>
<p>I do agree with you here as well. However when the Democrat led Senate does not even try to pass a budget, it leaves the…</p>
<p>Matthew - I look forward to your reply. You also said previously "the debt ceiling, for example, does not allow for increased spending - it only allows us to pay for what we've already spent. it is not a tool for negotiation. the GOP wants to use the threat of default, thus diminishing the full faith and credit of the US, as a way to get what they want." </p>
<p>I do agree with you here as well. However when the Democrat led Senate does not even try to pass a budget, it leaves the Republicans few options to try to rein in spending. Actually neither party truly cuts spending, A "cut" is usually just a lower rate of growth in spending, but I am sure you know that :) </p> i'll try to respond in full t…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-08:2182797:Comment:21180012012-12-08T01:16:30.457Zmatthew greenberghttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/matthewgreenberg
<p>i'll try to respond in full to this tomorrow. but let me say that that was a lucid and rational argument, much of which i agree with. consider me surprised, based on your previous comments. i disagree about Obama's desires as depicted in your last paragraph, but i have few issues with the rest of your response. </p>
<p>i'll try to respond in full to this tomorrow. but let me say that that was a lucid and rational argument, much of which i agree with. consider me surprised, based on your previous comments. i disagree about Obama's desires as depicted in your last paragraph, but i have few issues with the rest of your response. </p> Whether we have a spending pr…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-08:2182797:Comment:21181892012-12-08T01:02:57.363ZJim Schultzhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JimSchultz
<p>Whether we have a spending problem or a revenue problem is purely a matter of ideology - liberals say we have a revenue problem, conservatives say we have a spending problem.</p>
<p>What most people would agree we have is a deficit problem. If we are going to increase tax revenue, I would prefer to see it go to deficit reduction. That would require putting a lid on spending growth or decreasing spending at the same time we are increasing revenue. </p>
<p>Republicans have put on the table a…</p>
<p>Whether we have a spending problem or a revenue problem is purely a matter of ideology - liberals say we have a revenue problem, conservatives say we have a spending problem.</p>
<p>What most people would agree we have is a deficit problem. If we are going to increase tax revenue, I would prefer to see it go to deficit reduction. That would require putting a lid on spending growth or decreasing spending at the same time we are increasing revenue. </p>
<p>Republicans have put on the table a big compromise - limiting tax deductions. That would increase revenue without increasing the tax burden on small businesses. Obama has rejected this without offering anything. The issue of tax RATES is different than tax revenue. England raised tax rates on millionaires recently and the revenue actually dropped. Rich individuals change behavior when the rates go up, it is harder for small business to do the same. Note - no Republican is suggesting new tax cuts, just leaving the current rates in place.</p>
<p>I agree that the Greece analogy is not a strong one - EXCEPT for the fact that they promised more in entitlements than they could deliver (early retirements at full benefits, etc.) In that regard we are heading down the same path. Social Security can be fixed, but Medicare, Obamacare, and the new Medicaid increases can not be afforded UNLESS we get robust economic growth, 2% does not get it done. Increasing tax rates will not boost the economy. Even Obama said this two years ago. The difference now than in the past is the demographic bubble - fewer workers to support increasing percent of seniors. </p>
<p>I repeat - I believe Obama does not care about the deficit or whether we have strong economic growth. He just wants to win a political point. As you say - if raising tax rates on the wealthy doesn't raise much revenue, WHY would he insist on it. Why - to toss a bone to the base and to divide Republicans. If I were him, I would take the tax revenues the Repubs have offered and offer something in return - some spending cuts that will never happen. But I care about the economy. He could come out as the hero. But instead - he will overplay his hand. What does HE have to lose really ? He already won re-election, and is in the process of purchasing his post president residence far away in Hawaii. </p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Republicans may have reached…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-08:2182797:Comment:21182252012-12-08T00:07:01.292ZDr. Allan H. Clarkhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DrAllanHClark
<p>Republicans may have reached bottom this week with two actions in the Senate— 1) failing to ratify the disabilities treaty for fear it would interfere with home schooling and 2) having Senator McConnell propose a bill he thought would embarrass Democrats who voted against it and then filibustering his own bill when they agreed to a vote. All sensible conservatives ought to be embarrassed by both actions. It shows a party caught in the vise of extremism.</p>
<p>I say 'may have reached bottom'…</p>
<p>Republicans may have reached bottom this week with two actions in the Senate— 1) failing to ratify the disabilities treaty for fear it would interfere with home schooling and 2) having Senator McConnell propose a bill he thought would embarrass Democrats who voted against it and then filibustering his own bill when they agreed to a vote. All sensible conservatives ought to be embarrassed by both actions. It shows a party caught in the vise of extremism.</p>
<p>I say 'may have reached bottom' because with the GOP it's hard to tell where bottom is—they keep plumbing new depths.</p>
<p></p>